- 7 -
Petitioner asks the Court to postpone entry of decision
until: (1) An extension of time to pay petitioner's Federal
estate tax under section 6161(a) is no longer in effect and
appeal of respondent's denial of an extension is final, or (2)
petitioner pays estate tax and interest it owes, whichever is
earlier. Petitioner contends this situation is analogous to that
in Estate of Bailly v. Commissioner, supra.
Respondent contends: (1) This case is not like Estate of
Bailly because no extension of time to pay tax is now in effect;
(2) granting petitioner's motion would prevent respondent from
reviewing the facts and circumstances to determine whether a
hardship under section 6161 is present; and (3) Congress
considered section 6161(a) when enacting section 7481(d), but did
not provide a remedy for petitioner's situation. Respondent
points out that if we delay entry of decision, petitioner can
deduct interest, the deduction of which would otherwise be
precluded by entry of decision under section 6512(a). Neither
party questions the Court's power to postpone entry of decision
in this case.
1. Effect of the Fact That Petitioner's Request to
Continue To Defer Tax Under Section 6161 Is Pending
With The Commissioner
Respondent contends this situation is unlike that in Estate
of Bailly v. Commissioner, supra, because no extension of time to
pay tax under section 6161(a) is now in effect. We disagree.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011